User talk:Imamadmad
MOS demotion I realise you're likely going to hate what I have to say. But the truth is this. We actually need Master of Spiders. Take a good, long look at w:c:drwho.answers:Special:ListUsers, sorting by date of last edit. We've had a little bit of activity around the 50th anniversary, but even so, you've got almost no registered editors working the site. It's unfortunate that you can't look at that report through time, because if you were able to see it just one month ago, it would have shown you that you had zero other registered editors with recent edits aside from you and he. I suspect that as you get into mid-January, site stats will again plummet. I know that you feel you are at your wits end with him. But I think this is largely because you've only been communicating through messages on a talk page. Therefore, I have proposed to him that, in January or February, you, he and I need to be in a joint chat session, either via Wikia Chat or (preferably) Skype text chat, so that we can have a proper, real-time conversation. If he doesn't agree, fine, he's done. But if he does agree, I need you to agree to come along too. Sure, in the past, he may not have been responsive to you. But now that he understands that his admin powers are not guaranteed, he'll almost certainly be more willing to listen and change his behaviour. I think if we can all just come to a set of agreements about what constitutes a valid use of admin powers and what doesn't, we could re-institute him as an admin who was working with you instead of against you. What I'd like you to consider over the next month or so is that this is the first time that either of you has been an admin. You were both likely to make mistakes. Heck, I've been an admin on several different sites over the years, and I still make mistakes. So while it's possible that he did a few things that he might now regret, it's equally possible that a lot of your allegations against him weren't justified. Indeed, I didn't demote because I thought he was particularly in the wrong. I did so mostly to prevent the dynamite from exploding. It would be detrimental to site development to have an open war during this busy time. Once we're in the fallow part of the Doctor Who calendar, we really need to discuss what happened. Provided he responds satisfactorily, he should be re-instated. Course, if he pitches too big of a hissy fit in the next few days, he might find himself not just demoted, but banned. — CzechOut 15:24, December 3, 2013 (UTC) Cool. Thanks for your willingness to at least have a dialogue. So far, I've not had a similar response from MOS, so this may all be theoretical. If and when he accepts the offer, we'll talk more about precise scheduling. I'll linger for a moment, though, on something you said, cause it's interesting. All users of the wiki aren't equal. Admin aren't "better" than non-admins — that's certainly true — but we aren't equal to regular users. By definition, if Sally can remove Jenny's power to use the wiki, the Sally and Jenny aren't equals. Where their powers coincide — that is, in the regular editing of the wiki — sure, admin and users are equal. Admin simply have a different set of problems than the average user, and when that problem set is at issue — which it is with MOS — then they should probably talk amongst themeselves. The average user has no clear idea of the tools and limitations that an admin has. We can't decide things based upon common consent. As Wikipedia demonstrated long ago, wikis are not places for unlimited free speech nor democracy. The goal is to create something. At Tardis, we're making an encyclopedia; here we're making a place to have intelligent questions about DW asked and answered. Both of those goals are incompatible with taking a poll of people's feelings. I'm sure that if we said, "Hey, do you think that people should be blocked only if three admin agree to do so?" we'd probably get a lotta votes for that. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea. That would mean that we'd get a whole lot of vandalism that we couldn't stop with a single click. But it'd be a popular idea. Indeed, Wikia is built on a form of inequality. There are things I know about Wikia's future plans that I'm legally bound not to repeat to you. And there are things Wikia Staff know that I don't know. And there are things people like Jenburton know that WIkia Staff don't know. And there are things her bosses know that she doesn't know. In other words, there are things that are legitimately "need to know". It's a fundamental concept of any organisation. A good, practical example is your school. Administrators, teachers and students are all equal under the law (well, the older students anyway). But there are student government meetings to which only elected students are allowed admittance. There are teacher conferences to which students aren't invited. And there are administrator meetings where you won't find your favorite teacher. And like wikis, schools don't run on full and open democracy. Your teachers don't say to you, "Hey, who's for not having homwork today?" You don't get the dinner lady coming around and asking people if they think it's a good idea to only serve cake for lunch. No, what happens is that the teacher (usually) has a state-mandated curriculum and she has to make sure that each day you get a little closer to hitting that target. So she attends meetings with her colleagues to establish that on the 5th of December, you'll get this particular assignment. Likewise, the cafeteria manager has a budget and nutritional guidelines, and presents the food that works within both. That's a long way of saying that it's not at all worrying or antithetical to the "Wikia spirit" to have a meeting of administrators.'' It's us trying to figure out what it means to be an administrator at DWA, how to use tools that only we have access to. And besides, we don't have registered editors, really. You gotta register an account to use Chat. And people who won't register an account on Wikia, where you don't even need an email address, aren't likely to have a Skype account, where you do. And even if they did have a Skype account, there's no way for us to know for sure that the Skype account matched the IP address. Basically, you're wanting to give the wiki transparency when they haven't even extended the same courtesy to us. We owe absolutley nothing in the way of transparency to people who steadfastly refuse to register an account. 'A precondition of participation must be that the conversation will ''not be made public, except in transcripts approved by all three of us. That's the only guarantee of a frank discussion of ideas. But, like I said at the beginning. MOS hasn't been back in touch, so this whole thing may never happen. — CzechOut 02:30, December 5, 2013 (UTC) ::MOS has in no way been in touch since the above offer was made to him, which doesn't seem to indicate he's all that interested in making a return. — CzechOut 00:25, December 28, 2013 (UTC) Signature test These are words which I am writing. This is a message to myself. You could say that I'm talking to myself. Well, you wouldn't be wrong. I just need to make sure my new signature works, and to do so I need to add it to a reasonably sized body of text. Not that I'm expecting to use the signature much. Only User talk pages and normal talk pages requires my attention and signature these days. The rest is all done for me, like in the forums. But I think it's kinda nice. Not ugly and garish as some other people's signatures. Doesn't really display properly in mobile yet, but I can't understand why that is. Why would the mobile browser ignore my CSS commands? I dunno. Anyway, this should be long enough. Adios! 05:06, February 16, 2014 (UTC) user talk page at DWA Hey :) I'd appreciate you not mentioning on my user talk page at DWA that I've locked my user talk page. I don't want to seem unfriendly or anti-IP users. At the same time, I don't want to expose myself in DW areas of Wikia to silly people who could jump on and, as a prank, reveal information about the leaked scripts/videos. I'm not able to be completely unspoiled any more, but I think it's not inappropriate to try to inoculate myself just a bit. Accordingly, all I've done is make my protection level at DWA the same as it is at Tardis, where we currently are not allowing IP edits. It would therefore be helpful if you wouldn't announce that I've locked out IP editors right on my talk page. Indeed, it would best if you just didn't comment upon it at all. In the same way that we haven't formally announced that we're not allowing IP edits at Tardis, it's best if it just goes unremarked. Don't worry — the protection won't be up for very long. I've just got it up long enough for the furore over the leaks to die down, and for people to become interested in something else. Thanks :) — CzechOut 19:21, July 17, 2014 (UTC) ::No worries at all! I'm only concerned about public acknowledgement of the protection of my talk page for a very simple reason. In my experience, if you tell people that you don't want something to happen, that's precisely what they'll try to make happen. I haven't checked where you might have commented upon it aside from my own user talk page, but it would be indeed nice if you could redact visible references to my talk page's current state of protection. — CzechOut 21:47, July 17, 2014 (UTC) Admin nominations at DWA Hey, I think you've misunderstood the admin application process because of what happened in its first use with 23Skidoo. That one went through in a week because he's one of the original Wikia users, with a long history of contributing all over the network. This time, you presented someone with no real experience, whose primary fandom isn't even Doctor Who, whose knowledge is mainly Moffat-era, and who had gone through a recent name change on Wikia. And the only rationale for adminship boiled down to, "Imamadmad asked me to." The cases are completely different. There's no set length to a nomination. It's gotta be at least a week. But there's certainly no problem with it lasting several weeks. Nominations at most wikis typically last for upwards of a month. I urge you to just let me close the things at my own pace, rather than writing multiple messages on multiple wikis that suggest that I'm somehow letting you down. In fact this time I was simply employing a more cautious approach. Given the number of DWA admins that have gone rogue or missing, we should be taking more time with the process. — CzechOut 15:30, May 26, 2015 (UTC) usertags.js Attribution Hey there. You're probably unaware, but I created MediaWiki:Common.js/usertags.js, which apparently ended up here via the WildBrick142's copy on the wildones wiki. (User:WildBrick142 copied the 2013-07-22 version of my script without attribution.) Could you please add attribution or remove the script? Thanks! Incidentally, how did the script end up here? I've found WildBrick142's copy on a few other wikis already, and I'm trying to track down any others who might have also copied it. -452 15:06, January 9, 2016 (UTC)